A Sound Magnetic Base



  • edited July 2014
    Ampères theory attempts to do away with magnetic fluids, replacing them with " electric" circuits.
    However this is misleading , and so I replace them with vorticular behaviours of space, in which the rotation is detected as magnetic and the radal as electric.

    The reader is tempted immediately to interpret this as meaning "when the wire is carrying a current," but the "electrical conflict" to which Œrsted attributed the magnetic effect had little to do with the modern concept of electric current. As we shall see below, it is precisely from Œrsted’s experiment that Ampère was led to define "electric current" as a circulation of electrical fluid(s) in a closed circuit.
    So, there was a direct relationship between electricity and magnetism. This link was sought out by Œrsted who, sensitive to the "romantic" vision of nature then predominant in Germanic countries, long had maintained the unity of physical phenomena. He even had argued the idea that electricity was at the heart of this unity. But in Paris, mathematicians and physicists such as Laplace, Poisson, or Biot were convinced of the complete independence between electricity and magnetism. Certainly Coulomb had shown that electrical and magnetic forces followed laws identical to that of Newton for gravity, these three forces decreasing as the inverse square of the distance. But, there was hardly more reason to believe in a connection between electricity and magnetism than to believe in a magnetic attraction between the Earth and the Moon.
    Moreover, the revolving character of the observed effect was astonishing. Newtonian forces acting between masses, between electrical charges, or between magnetic poles, are directed along a straight line joining the interacting elements. Œrsted’s experiment did not fit into this framework. If one overcame the magnetic effect of the Earth on the needle, as Ampère soon would achieve, the needle actually turned to be perpendicular to the wire, as if it were driven by a vortex turning around the wire. The vortices that Œrsted evoked harkened back to those that Descartes claimed to explain celestial motions, and these seemed to be a step backward to outdated science. Rare were those physicists who accepted Œrsted’s vortex explanation.
  • edited July 2014
    In Ampères demonstration of the interaction of electric currents on each other he stated that currents in the same direction in 2 wires will cause the wires to attract each other. The demonstration was too subtle for his audience and all observers even today!
    This experiment is fundamental for Ampère’s theory. It is for him the purest manifestation of the effects produced by electricity in motion.
    But, this interaction between currents was not understood as such by his audience. It looked too much like a new version of the usual electrical attractions. Also, Ampère had to emphasize an essential difference: while similarly electrified bodies repel each other, similar currents (flowing in the same direction) attract each other. In addition, the conductor connected to the battery’s terminals did not carry a discernible charge.
    It is quite clear from the mittech video that opposing currents in the same circuit should repel the wires . That they represent the same electrification in terms of charge would lead to an assumption of repulsion which is what is observed, as in Eric's model. However in a pair of circuits that are aligned so the currents are said to run parallel the common electrification would promote the assumption of repulsion between the wires, but instead attraction is observed.

    This is the basis of Ampères theoretical position. The circuits attract whereas the wires repel!

    The action of a current is thus not the same as electrification or charging the wire by friction or rubbing.

    In my opinion the closed circuit however arrayed forms a rotating" smoke ring" like system which draws space through from one side to the other and wraps it in a vortex spiral that tightens onto the " conductor. It is this behaviour that gives the " north - south polarisation" to the circuit.

    The effect of this space wrapping behaviour is to create a pressure gradient that attracts circuits together but then pushes wires apart when they get too close! The circuits thus oscillate relative to each other and this is the basis of heating , sparking and eventual short circuiting.

    However controlling this behaviour at the edges ( the wires) provides an internal flux we call magnetic .

    The idea of an infinite wire is thus misleading in the extreme. A circuit , closed , is necessary to generate this vortex ring effect, and 2 such rings interact in the way Ampère envisaged at the centre, but the rings themselves have an additional dynamic he did not figure.

    The fractal loop theory that can and has been drawn as a modern development of his ideas , that is a spiral or helical theory can account for these finer interactions, but will suffer if they alo ignore the edge effects or the surface boundary effects of vortices.

    Finally because the 2 fluid explanation has been supplanted by the single fluid explanation with the adjunct of an attractive force( Volta's argument) the inherent duality which scientists habitually ignore in favour of defining a direction means our theories are always unbalanced and half baked!

    Can 2 currents flow around the same wire in opposite directions? Yes and at the same time ! at the very least the time interval in the cycle , if they do so successively, or sequentially is not discernible by us currently.
  • edited July 2014
    I have examined the video demonstration many times to be certain I am not missing something.
    The MIT techs used a series and a parallel circuit. The parallel circurepast tracts the wires the series circuit repels the wires.
    Now when I look at the French set up it seems that the series circuit attracts the wires! However careful analysis of the French video shows that they use a loop to get parallel " currents". Thus the currents are in series but placed in a solenoid loop. Such a loop introduces a full turn of the wires so that the " current" runs parallel in the same direction. However using a half turn in the wire gives parallel currents running in opposite directions, still in series and these repel.

    So the important observation by Ampère is correct . The attraction is solenoidal irrespective of the electrification of the wires.

    For a vortex to explain this reaction requires the idle wheel of Maxwell in a mechanical sense. Thus the motion of the " current" would have to create an idle wheel to facilitate attraction. The electrification vortex creates repulsion by the interaction of the opposite sides of the same gyre.

    Since it is not electrification that is Governing attraction and repulsion the motion of the circulating behaviour must coo respond to magnetic behaviours( amoères only alternatives). His successful demonstrations of the magnetic behaviours revealed an insight into the effects of dynamism on electrification.

    However those who followed resisted the concept of every aspect being entirely rotational, and thus fractal, and stuck with the charge model, only adding Ampères effects as moving charge.
  • I want to let you see, from a very good communicator how the magnetic basis of reality allows us to see the loops in and of space. Ampères idea has lead me this morning to posit " smoke rings" with their plumes as Ampères loops and the fundamental substance to be plasma in an undetermined range of rotational motions at infinite varieties of rotational "velocities"( almost) .

    At a first level description I will call this the hydrogen plasma. This fluid is beyond the gas model. It's fundamental motion is relativistic trochoidal motion. Smoke rings are one simple model of a fundamental fluid translation. Fluid loops lie at the heart of the current quantum and high energy particle physics.

    The only misleading concepts at the heart of particle physics is the notion of charge and the notion of a monopole charge or the electron. In fact high energy physics does not have 2 charges, it has about 15 charges. For each charge they formulate" a particle", but this is a misspeak. All high energy physicists speak in fluid dynamic terms..

    We can totally understand magnetic behaviour by fluid dynamic models, and the fluid is this fundamental hydrogen plasma. I replace primitive particles by a primitive fluid that has differential relativistic rotational attributes: that is fractal regional distribution.
  • edited July 2014
  • I have to say that the electron has been debunked! It has been debunked by physicists but they do not tell you.

    The electron as a charged fundamental particle was found to be accompanied by a magnetic field, always! In 1920 it was discovered that the electron had this "magnetic field" and they decided to call it " spin" . They called it spin because that was the only way they could keep the charge model! Using Ampères idea of moving charge generating a magnetic field they fearlessly combined the particle charge model with " spin" states to develop a magnetic dipole! This is usually depicted as a small bar magnet.

    In one sense it unifies both camps , those who say the fundamental " force" or rather as Faraday perceived it ,energy is electric charge, and those that say it is "magnetic charge", however this is mere window dressing. The idea of a fundamental negative charge was shown to be incorrect in recent high energy X-ray collisions recently. The electron shatters into 2 different spin states or phenomena with a third momentum status. The electron is not a fundamental particle at all!

    What remains fundamental is rotational " magnetic" fields or spin.

    There are 3 states of gyre in the Dhunya field theory, contracting, expanding and steady radial dynamic equilibrium.. The magnetic behaviour is the fundamental sound basis used everyday by high energy physics to create explanations of the structures of our material experience.

    Now they have not publicly found individual north pole magnets, that is the south seeking Gilbert plasmas as I call them, the magnetic monads or as Gardner calls them Uni poles: or its counterpart individual south pole magnets, instead what they say they have found is parts of the electron with contra spin. They know this because they interact differently!

    Really this is complexification of the simple minded idea of Gilbert and repeated by Ed, that there are individual unit magnets that behave in these different ways , as plasmas , one running north to south and the other running south to north. They even have the complex " dance" of there integration reaction as a spiralling against each other before combining.

    None of this is " new". Örsted pondered this in his philosophical musings as did Ampère. The difference is we have technology that behaves in ways which can only be sensibly explained by these intuitive philosophical ideas!

    Scientists like to say, well that was philosophy, this is science! That is a totally meaningless assertion!
  • Watch this

  • Wow that is a great video. I find it interesting how much of the video describes certain views similar to Eds writings about north and south individual magnets and magnetic currents. Ed writes about how he thinks the structure of the metal is the answer towards retaining magnets and around @ 49:00 in the video it suggest that this is the case and even the shape is to be taken in consideration.
    Another thing, you have been wondering how a U shape permanent magnet can keep its normal strength indefinitely. You know the soft iron does not hold magnets, but you already have one that holds it. It is the perpetual motion holder. It illustrates the principle how permanent magnets are made. All that has to be done is to start the magnets to run in on orbit, then they will never stop. Hard steel U shape magnets have a broken orbit, but under proper conditions it is permanent. I think the structure of the metal is the answer. I have two U shape magnets. They look alike, but one is a little harder than the other. The harder one can lift three pounds more than the softer one. I have been tempering the other steel magnets, and have noticed that the harder the steel gets the smaller it becomes. That shows that the metal is more packed and has less holes in it so the magnets cannot pass through it in full speed, so they dam up in the prong ends. They come in faster than they can get out. I think the ability for the soft steel welding rod to hold magnets is in the metal's fine structure.
    In the beginning of his book Ed says that the substance circulating in the metal is the real magnet and then continues on to say that if guided in the right channels they possess perpetual power. Now around @ 44:50 during the video I find very interesting regarding what Ed says about real magnet because here he starts speaking about edge currents, even though the video says that they have direct evidence of the electron flow model but still mention that when current is flowing its generating a magnetic fields. As for the channels that the individual magnets must be guided in I see semiconductors specifically transistors and diodes being to what Ed is referring to there.
    Now about the sphere magnet. If you have a strong magnet you can change the poles in the sphere in any side you want or take the poles out so the sphere will not be a magnet any more. From this you can see that the magnet can be shifted and concentrated and also you can see that the metal is not the real magnet. The real magnet is the substance that is circulating in the metal. Each particle in the substance is an individual magnet by itself, and both North and South Pole individual magnets. They are so small that they can pass through anything.. In fact they can pass through metal easier than through the air. They are in constant motion, they are running one kind of magnets against the other kind, and if guided in the right channels they possess perpetual power. The North and South Pole magnets they are cosmic force, they hold together this earth and everything on it. Each North and South Pole magnet is equal in strength, but the strength of each individual magnet doesn't amount to anything. To be of practical use they will have to be in great numbers.
    This is why I find the PMH interesting because it show us the ability to store a magnetic charge by utilizing its U shape core with a cross bar on top and when the cross bar is pulled off the magnetic charge induces a current back into the coils and also generating a magnetic field as well. Take Note that breaking the magnetic charge on the PMH induces a current back in the coils. While capacitors on the other hand stores a electric field charge by using a none conductive dielectric break in the circuit to hold the two charge and when the capacitor leads are connected together this creates a current in the wire.
  • After studying the Galilean principle in the Dialogo I was finally able to understand the missing ingredient in the explanations of the Lorentz transformations. It is simply the explanation he gave of the Jovian system, and the diagram thereto.

    Remarkably I was researching Newtonian motive at the same time, and revised my understanding of it radically. I came upon newtons triumvirate of vis! It turned out to be Newtons elaboration of the Galilean principle.

    Consequently because of examples of the centripetal force given in his discussion one can immedately state thw mathematical law of gravity in terms of magnetic densities, just as Coulomb immediately states it in terms of charge deities!

    What this means is that Maxwells equations as redacted by Heaviside Are not the simplest expression of magnetic behaviours. Newtons "gravitational" law or rather centripetal system law is.

    We can use one formula with appropriate densities to describe gravity, electric force ,both positive and negative( attractive and repulsive) as well as magnetic force.

    The finding regarding magnetic force along a wire is a summation of the supposed orbital systems moving about the wire.

    Ed in discussing single Magnets does not use the word pole. The magnetic substance is particulate, the substance or as I prefer plasma is the magnet. It's particles are magnets. The only polar distinction is in the way the substance runs, for Ed. poles do not exist in the substance itself.

    This concept of magnet is identical to the concept of force. Thus he later refers to them as cosmic force. There is a simple agreement of terms if we as Ed and Newton replace the concept of magnet with a centripetal force, 2 of them running in opposing vorticular directions.
  • Watch this video and forget Faradays iron filings! This is the plasma version of that fundamental demonstration in 1820!

  • edited August 2014
    ThiS one is crucial to the sound bass of Eds observations

    At first I expected the same result as the permanent magnets. But then I realised that there are 2 opposing vortices running around the circuit loops. They cancel each other out but not the magnetic force!
    In a permanent magnet only one vortex dominates, and only one vortex is needed to spin plasma. The opposing vortices do not spin plasma but the tension in space is evident as force. The bubbles are not attracted because they are non spinning plasma. Spinning plasma is attracted or repelled according to its relative spin.

    The fact that there are z2 vortices is shown by the following experiments with insulated and non insulated magnets in a current loop.

    The insulated and non insulated current surrounded wires also show or have the two vortices bound to it. Thus insulated wire will concentrate spin into the centre in the opposite spin to the uninsulated wire which will demonstrate spin on the outside . An electromagnet thus has the opposing spin inducing magnetic spin into the metal core which being uninsulated will spin in the opposing direction thus producing a null spin result.
  • edited August 2014
    Thanks Jehovajah for the links to these interesting experiments.

    It looks like we are slowly but surely recovering from the STR/GTR/QM momentary lapse of reason. Here is another chink through the wall: Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism by Kenneth Lee Wheeler.
  • Thanks for the link to Wheelers summary. It certainly deserves to be persued as it collects together much that is hidden from mainstream views.

    However it still needs work, and accessible terminology. I use the word vortex mainly because I have very few other options beyond inventing my own terms.

    In addition I would replace Maxwell by Faraday in his list of heroes, but of course there are many others including Keeley who have been left out of this presentation, as well as Leedskalnin.

    The beauty of Ed is the simplicity and charm of his presentation.
  • edited August 2014
    The history of astrological paradigms !

    The one mistake that ties them in knots is the electron.

    Ampère posited current loops. The magnetic " pinch" does not exist between currents, but between current loops. But current by Volta is an atmosphere around at least 3 different substances in a circuit loop, one of which must be " moist" that is involve H2O.

    But we can posit that this atmosphere is the rotating plasmas of Ed Leedskalnin, based on Örsteds philosophical ideas, and that these rotating plasmas are the behaviours we call magnetic. Theus magneto dynamics is one way to describe the concept of electric, but it is only a doorway into a philosophy of dynamic space rotations.
Sign In or Register to comment.